From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:02:30 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 06/16] ARM idle: delete pm_idle
In-Reply-To: <9838a4aeee256adeaef90efe56df2c9988206982.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com>
References: <2b219d07e0f287c2c713f5465fc8646158fa986e.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com>
 <9838a4aeee256adeaef90efe56df2c9988206982.1360475150.git.len.brown@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20130211160229.GB5676@MacBook-Pro.local>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:58:13AM +0000, Len Brown wrote:
> pm_idle() on ARM was a synonym for default_idle(),
> so simply invoke default_idle() directly.

The clean-up looks fine as we already have an arm_pm_idle but longer
term I was thinking about having a common declaration similar to
pm_power_off that code under drivers/power/(reset/) can override (and
such driver may be shared by multiple architectures). OTOH, if you get
rid of the generic linux/pm.h declaration architectures can use a common
pm_idle name and type (though I think having it in the common header
would be better). For ARM this would mean s/arm_pm_idle/pm_idle/ on top
if your patch.

Do you have any plans with pm_power_off as well?

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin